Do you believe in God?

[Hun200kmh]

This, one thousand times.

There's no excitement or challenge in religion or belief in God. You get what you're given and can take it or leave it, but you're essentially granted the right to waive a thirst for knowledge of our surroundings. You can appreciate your surroundings for sure, but the buzz is taken away from finding out how it all actually happens.

True if the religious are so afraid of science they try to stop it. That shows a lack of faith. Being afraid that science is or will ever be able to reach the fundaments of faith. Something that is simply not possible.

In any case, I think there's a lot of excitement and definitely a lot of challenge in religion and in the belief of God.

And ... I do like to know how it all actually happens in this universe. Or in others, if they exist too.

--------

@TheCracker

Science= Reverse Mythbusters
Religion = Why

 

[Exorcet]

Science= Reverse Mythbusters
Religion = Why

That first part is purely absurd.

I think TheCracker was pretty spot on Even if you argue that religion seeks why (and it seems that it assumes there is a why) it does it without proof, hence the opposite of disproving a myth, creating one.

 

[dylansan]

Religion doesn't seek "why." Christianity has claimed to know exactly "why" since it's was first created. The only times religion actually questions its own ideas are when science makes a discovery that requires religion to either change or reject science. And it seems it usually tends to reject it.

The concepts of science and religion can be compatible for a lot of people, I find, but the actual process of religious "investigation" is completely antithetical to the process of science. Even if religion claims to answer "why," it and science both attempt to provide answers for "how," and they arrive at answers through completely opposing ways.

 

[Rich S]

I like this, its on the presidential election & how it relates to religion:

 

[TankAss95]

Right guys I have been studying evolution over a short period of time now, and I have came to a conclusion. I believe in evolution, but only at the micro level. Macro evolution seems , at this point in my study, complete rubbish:
'A proportion of favourable mutations of one in a thousand does not sound much, but it is probably generous... And a total of a million mutational steps sounds a great deal but it is probably an understatement... However, let us take these figures as being reasonable estimates. With this proposition, but without any selection, we should clearly have to breed a million strains (a thousand squared) to get one containing two favourable mutations: up to a thousand to the millionth power to get one containing a million. Of course this could not happen, but it is a useful way of visualising the fantastic odds against getting number of favourable mutations in one strain through pure chance alone. A thousand to the millionth power, when written out, becomes a figure 1 with three million noughts after it; and that would take three large volumes to print! No one would bet on anything so improbable happening.' -Julian Huxely

Also worth pointing out that almost all mutations are universally harmful, if not lethal...

'This is fortunate, for in virtually all instances they are harmful. Recall that the DNA is a molecular message. A mutation is a random change in the message, akin to a typing error. Typing errors rarely improve the quality of a written message; if too many occur, they may even destroy the information contained in it. Likewise, mutations rarely improve the quality of the DNA message, and too many may even be lethal.' -Magnus Verbrugge

Classing macro evolution as a clear fact is nothing more than arrogance in my opinion. I will continue to study further, but micro evolution however seems most certainly fact.
Micro-evolution=Highly probable
Macro-evolution=Ridiculous

Of course I still have much to study and my opinion may change, but the theory of macro evolution seems not to be the thing that kills the story if Genesis like everyone says it does. I will not currently accept the existence of such theory as a valid point against Christianity, or ultimately against the existence if the monotheistic, Christian God whom I believe in.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Ah yes, the old Micro vs Macro argument again. Pointless terms since they are the same thing only differing in timescales. It's kind of an oxymoron to say that you believe in microevolution but not in macroevolution.

Also, it would be better if you wrote more of your own words instead of copy pasting quotes. Quotes that have often proved to be taken out of context.

 

[TankAss95]

Ah yes, the old Micro vs Macro argument again. Pointless terms since they are the same thing only differing in timescales. It's kind of an oxymoron to say that you believe in microevolution but not in macroevolution.

Also, it would be better if you wrote more of your own words instead of copy pasting quotes. Quotes that have often proved to be taken out of context.

Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science. Evolutionist usually argue that those who believe in creation are ignoring the facts, however, there is nothing that evolutionist observe in science that creationist or Christians as a whole disagree with.

 

[homeforsummer]

Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species.

...as a result of micro changes in individuals that add up over time.

You say you've been studying it but clearly not in the right places.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species

Which, given enough time, will make a different species. Little changes over a very long time period=Very different. Macroevolution.

Also, just because we cannot see something happening before our eyes, doesn't mean there aren't ways of observing it. All evidence (for something to be called a scientific theory there must be evidence, facts) point towards evolution of the macro-scale.

 

[TankAss95]

Macro-evolution implies the emergence of new complex functions. Micro evolution just means slight modifications to functions which the being already has.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Macro-evolution implies the emergence of new complex functions. Micro evolution just means slight modifications to functions which the being already has.

Yes and again slight modifications become vast after a very long timeperiod. Vast enough to be considered new if the time period is long enough.

Edit: May I ask what sources you've studied from?

 

[TankAss95]

Yes and again slight modifications become vast after a very long timeperiod. Vast enough to be considered new if the time period is long enough.

Natural selection thins the gene pool, but evolution demands that information be added. No evolutionary change (i.e. micro evolution) ever adds information to the genetic material. The only way evolution (i.e. Macro evolution) could be possible is if new information were to be added to the DNA.

 

[BobK]

Natural selection thins the gene pool, but evolution demands that information be added. No evolutionary change (i.e. micro evolution) ever adds information to the genetic material. The only way evolution (i.e. Macro evolution) could be possible is if new information were to be added to the DNA.

But it happens all the time. Codons, genes (and entire chromosomes) occasionally get duplicated and/or imperfectly copied. This can cause, for instance, a gene with an extra codon to generate a slightly different protein. That amounts to added information.

 

[TankAss95]

But it happens all the time. Codons, genes (and entire chromosomes) occasionally get duplicated and/or imperfectly copied. This can cause, for instance, a gene with an extra codon to generate a slightly different protein. That amounts to added information.

Yes, and isn't that just classed as mutation?

 

[AlexGTV]

The gods of the religions I know seem as plausible as Santa Claus.

I think it comes down to whether you follow your rational or feelings. The former is far more reliable and speaking from myself I don't have any evidence what so ever that a human intervening god exists.

Also, what science has done to our understanding of the world is much more compelling and touching than any or the ancient tales. So, due to the quantum uncertainty principle, even if the universe is strictly deterministic and thus no free will, we will never know - thus the apparent miracle of free will is a valid religion, it cannot been disproved.

As a follower of the scientific method, if I had to say what god is I could say nothing else except this:
God is the natural laws. Think about it.

 

[TB]

Just in case anyone has forgotten, take it over there, thanks.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

God is the natural laws. Think about it.

Can natural laws explain everything including the "cause" of this thread?

 

[BobK]

Just in case anyone has forgotten, take it over there, thanks.

Sure, boss!

 

[Recon]

. . . thus the apparent miracle of free will is a valid religion, it cannot been disproved . . .

Is free will available to all organisms? Or is it exclusive to only humans, and if so, (I'm sorry for dipping into evolution) where in the evolutionary chain did it develop? Well discoveries in neuroscience have shown a region of the brain called the pineal gland that allows the human to think that they control all of their actions, but really, we would function just fine without this little gland, and that we humans are all just incredibly, incredibly complex machines.

So no, the apparent miracle of free will is apparent, but its only a cruel illusion. As cynical a view it may be, this image can account for a lot of spiritual things as well

 

[SuperShouden]

Okay, I can tell the pole was written by an atheist. Why can't a simple "yes" ever suffice? They way it's worded now, it's kind of like "Yes, I'm a Bible thumper who wants to condemn anyone who commits sin...minus me, of course, but I never sin."

How about:

Yes
Maybe
No

Simple.

 

[nello-C1]

pure and simple yes:tup:

 

[SuperShouden]

pure and simple yes:tup:

Exactly like that.

I don't know about the other Christians here, but I don't want to be associated with Western Baptist. They are to Christianity as PETA is to animal rights.

 

[BobK]

Okay, I can tell the pole was written by an atheist. Why can't a simple "yes" ever suffice? They way it's worded now, it's kind of like "Yes, I'm a Bible thumper who wants to condemn anyone who commits sin...minus me, of course, but I never sin."

How about:

Yes
Maybe
No

Simple.

I agree with you that a simple "yes" or "no" would have been better choices, I for the life of me cannot see how you got "Yes, I'm a Bible thumper who wants to condemn anyone who commits sin" from "Of course, without him nothing would exist!" After all, isn't that exactly what most religious folk believe?

 

[theotherspongey]

I hate how all Christians have to think that because one Atheist is totally against religion, they presume to go and say ALL atheists are like that.

Well, hate to rain on your parade, but that's completely false. Stop putting all of the negativity on the Atheists because they don't believe what you do.

 

[TankAss95]

Exactly like that.

I don't know about the other Christians here, but I don't want to be associated with Western Baptist. They are to Christianity as PETA is to animal rights.

There are many horrible 'Christians' in the world who have done bad things in the name of religion. It is our job to prove the world that Christianity is good.

I hate how all Christians have to think that because one Atheist is totally against religion, they presume to go and say ALL atheists are like that.

Well, hate to rain on your parade, but that's completely false. Stop putting all of the negativity on the Atheists because they don't believe what you do.

Many Christians think that, but if goes the same way with religion. Growing up I have had lots of negativity towards my beliefs, even though I keep them to myself. Whenever I stick up for myself I would get ridiculed.
It's your job, as an atheist, to show the world that you are considerate, helpful and nice.

 

[Pyle_PMG]

It's your job, as an atheist, to show the world that you are considerate, helpful and nice.

A good 99% of us are.

There is the 1% that aren't (And they get the 99% labelled as inconsiderate :censored:s).

However, there are times where the truth needs to be said, and sometimes the truth hurts. Deal with it.

 

[TankAss95]

A good 99% of us are.

There is the 1% that aren't (And they get the 99% labelled as inconsiderate :censored:s).

However, there are times where the truth needs to be said, and sometimes the truth hurts. Deal with it.

I will never be a nihilist.

 

[TheCracker]

There are many horrible 'Christians' in the world who have done bad things in the name of religion. It is our job to prove the world that Christianity is good.

It's your job, as an atheist, to show the world that you are considerate, helpful and nice.

A good 99% of us are.

There is the 1% that aren't (And they get the 99% labelled as inconsiderate :censored:s).

Being either 'good' or 'bad' is a matter of perspective and personal opinion.

Being a 'good christian' or even what you'd class as just being a good person in general, doesn't necessarily make you a good person everywhere in the world.

 

[TankAss95]

Being either 'good' or 'bad' is a matter of perspective and personal opinion.

Being a 'good christian' or even what you'd class as just being a good person in general, doesn't necessarily make you a good person everywhere in the world.

I agree/disagree here. What a 'good' or 'bad' person is is a matter of perspective and personal opinion like you say, but we all have a similar common agreement of what is obviously 'good' or 'bad'.

To me a bad or evil person will always say he is right purely to achieve what he wants while not considering other people in the process.
A good person however, puts others equal, or even before himself. He evaluates the situation, and judges wether it is justifiable to do an act to achieve his own desires.

But in the end: 'Do unto others as you would like done to yourself'?

 

[Strittan]

I agree/disagree here. What a 'good' or 'bad' person is is a matter of perspective and personal opinion like you say, but we all have a similar common agreement of what is obviously 'good' or 'bad'.

To me a bad or evil person will always say he is right purely to achieve what he wants while not considering other people in the process.
A good person however, puts others equal, or even before himself. He evaluates the situation, and judges wether it is justifiable to do an act to achieve his own desires.

But in the end: 'Do unto others as you would like done to yourself'?

What does this have to do with God and religion though? Not very much I'd say. You do know a person can be an atheist and good at the same time, don't you?